13 ms·
Just goes to show how effective unionizing is. Power to those workers! They're a key part in making Apple one of the most valuable companies in the world. They
by lscdlscd 3y ago
Just goes to show how effective unionizing is. Power to those workers! They're a key part in making Apple one of the most valuable companies in the world. They deserve a fair share.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago"They're a key part in making Apple one of the most valuable companies in the world." ...
- 0x5345414e 3y agoYeah I’m not sure I agree with that statement either…
- notwhereyouare 3y agolet go all of the employees that work for apple an see how long they are still in business. Don't think the CEO is making their iphones on the line
- JimtheCoder 3y ago"Don't think the CEO is making their iphones on the line" Neither are the people unionizing here...
- Kiro 3y agoWe're talking about Apple Stores, not Apple in general. I'm sure Apple would be fine if they closed all stores.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe stores are a pretty critical component in their sales, marketing, and support cycles, and generally considered a big part of their current success.
- Kiro 3y agoI don't think so. Apple Stores are mostly a US thing.
- mcpackieh 3y agoEven in urban areas of America, Apple Stores are often far away in inconvenient locations. Look at the map of Apple Stores in Seattle; it's a pain in the ass to get to one without a car.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 3y agoThat's Apple's largest market, with 40% of sales. They have stores in 26 countries.
- Timon3 3y agoMore than half the people I know with Apple devices go to Apple stores for purchase & servicing. I'm from Germany.
- EA-3167 3y agoThe stores sure, but the individual retail workers definitely aren't, and are probably fairly replaceable.
- randomdata 3y ago> Don't think the CEO is making their iphones on the line I didn't realize that anyone at Apple was making iPhones on the line. Last I heard it was primarily Foxconn, along with a few other companies. When did Apple get involved in the manufacture of them?
- jjtheblunt 3y agoIt’s actually mostly robots but (to your point) with humans at various stages.
- Aunche 3y agoThis is a meaningless hypothetical because in no world is a highly successful company ever going to let go of all their workers. On the other hand, one can imagine in a less capital friendly world, nobody would partake in Apples 1996 junk bond offering that rescued them from bankruptcy. It's counterintuitive that a stupid investor who yolo'd their money could have a bigger impact than intelligent and hardworking workers, but that's exactly what happened. Without investment, these workers wouldn't be able to realize the potential that they had at Apple.
- nonethewiser 3y agoVirtually all companies oppose unionization. Am I to believe that all these companies are doing so out of sheer incompetence?
- sequoia 3y agoNo, it is in the best interest of companies extract as much labour value from workers for as little expenditure of payroll as possible. This is not in the best interest of the workers, however. The interests of the workers and those of the employer diverge on this point and both are working, rationally, for opposing goals. If you’re in a fight and you have a weapon but your opponent is unarmed, of course you would oppose your opponent being given a weapon as that’s not in your best interest. Your opponent may see things differently, just as the employer and employees see things differently in this situation. Apple's opponent is currently unarmed, and Apple doesn't want to see them armed with the weapon of collective bargaining.
- pierat 3y agoThese companies need to remember that NLRB and unionization was an agreement to take harsh violence off the table. In the old days, when First International and IWW was created, unionization efforts were to "set the bosses house on fire, with them in it", "pass out rifles to all workers and shoot up the bosses house", assaults, bombs.. you name it. That's also where we have the paramilitary force, Pinkertons. They were hired by the bosses to do the same thing to the union organizers. These companies have NO problem violating the meager federal law protections for workers. And to boot, there's basically no penalties. When things get bad enough, just watch for the "whoopsies", subvert sabotage, and direct violence against bosses and against property. Companies have forgotten about the older pact with unions to remove violence, and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc). Maybe they should be reminded?
- JimtheCoder 3y ago"and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc)." This is a new one. Thanks for sharing...
- 3y ago
- pxc 3y agoworkers: *produce all the value* owners: think you can negotiate? get fucked, workers! noble bystander: hey, these workers are a key part of the value creation equation here!!
- hospitalJail 3y agoMy MBA mostly pointed them to having the best marketing campaigns. I never once read or had a discussion about the quality of the employees. I suppose employees are the people making the marketing plans, but these aren't the people unionizing.
- foxyv 3y agoA huge part of the Apple marketing are their retail locations and "Geniuses." A great deal of the reason I bought my first Apple product was because of an employee in an Apple Store.
- LegitShady 3y agoapple were massively popular in canada long before we had any apple stores, and in fact I've never been to an apple store and still own apple products. I don't think what you're saying is true.
- foxyv 3y agoApple stores started opening in Canada in 2005. This was two years before the introduction of the iPhone.
- LegitShady 3y agoIn like one city maybe. There's a difference between "Started opening" and actually contributing to the success of apple products. I'd bet apple sells many many many more products that they get apple store traffic.
- foxyv 3y agoThey do now. However, iPhone sales through cell phone companies didn't start until 2007 when Apple teamed up with AT&T. A lot of their success with the iPhone started with how people experienced their products through their stores. Saying that their stores did not contribute to the success of the company would be absurd.
- Kiro 3y agoYes, but no need to exaggerate. My country has no Apple Stores and Apple is really popular here so I doubt they're key.
- II2II 3y agoThere was a time (the late 1990's) when Apple had relatively little access to the market outside of specialized stores and nearly zero control over how their product was presented to consumers. It wasn't so bad for maintaining the status quo since many of those stores were fiercely loyal to Apple. I suspect that Apple looked back at what brought them to that point when they started growing again. I don't know what their thoughts regarding the specialized stores were, but I wouldn't be surprised if they blamed the larger retailers for the acceleration of their earlier downfall. Having your product first shoved to the back corner, while being shunned by salespeople who knew nothing of the product, then removed from the shelves altogether does not inspire confidence in consumers. Sure, those retailers may have been picking up Apple products when Apple turned around ... but what is to prevent a replay of the late 1990's if things cooled down again? What I am going to suggest is that the Apple's popularity in your country is built upon Apple's popularity in other countries. While that popularity may not be the product of the Apple Store, Apple's ability to sustain that popularity likely is.
- pastor_bob 3y agoUnionizing is hard. Apple blatantly roughs up organizing efforts and after months of nothing, all they get is a 'cease and desist' order.
- 40yearoldman 3y ago[flagged]
- changoplatanero 3y agoI would relate fair share to how much value the worker is bringing in compared to an average applicant who is willing to take the position for a lower salary
- DHPersonal 3y ago> The cry of the ignorant. What is a fair share? In this case, I'd find out what the union was requesting and consider its fairness.
- derelicta 3y agoArgument makes sense if you conveniently forget it's workers in the first place who created the company's wealth.
- johngladtj 3y agoThe workers didn't create the wealth. The owners did. The workers sold their time and labor, and we're compensated according to what they negotiated. Why should they be entitled to anything more?
- myspy 3y agoThe owners wouldn't have been able to make more out of their company without others working for them. So yes, they did create the wealth. The owners could've died at some point and the company still would create the wealth. Up until to a certain point it takes those owners but it's a synergy.
- j_walter 3y agoThe workers could die at some point too, they will be replaced by new workers and no one would notice the difference. When do you notice the difference...when the owners or the top management are changed and the company strategy changes...not when a new iStore employee gets hired.
- Eumenes 3y agoThey are effective indeed, esp. as political donations go - who would've thought the carpenters union donates more to political initiatives than Oracle? https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizat...
- lokar 3y agoThat ignores individual donors. I assure you that execs and investors in oracle make up the difference.
- InitialLastName 3y agoThis doesn't seem shocking to me? Per [0] Oracle has ~100,000 employees and $6B in income. Per [1] the United Brotherhood of Carpenters has ~500,000 members; per [2] (yes, I'm aware this doesn't cover all of the occupations represented by the union, and some members will not be in the US) they have a mean income of ~$60,000, meaning the total income represented by the union could be ~$30B. That the union barely edges Oracle for political spending suggest that they punching well below their weight, relative to income. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Brotherhood_of_Carpenters_and_Joiners_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Brotherhood_of_Carpente... [2] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472031.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472031.htm
- Eumenes 3y ago
- ethbr0 3y agoIndeed. Companies hate unions because they increase labor costs and benefits. Does anyone really think corporate anti-union talking points are in their workers' best interest? Unions have their faults (e.g. bureaucracy), but corporations aren't fighting them for their employees' benefit.
- 93po 3y ago> Does anyone really think corporate anti-union talking points are in their workers' best interest? Yes, usually at least half the workforce. But but but the monthly dues!!!
- treeman79 3y ago[flagged]
- imachine1980_ 3y agoCar companies left cities not Detroit, the cost of labor was high but also thw cost of the space
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- birdyrooster 3y agoThis completely ignores globalization and the fact it was geopolitics that took the jobs away.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- willcipriano 3y agoThe unions were instrumental in getting the people pushing globalism elected.
- pmichaud 3y agoI don't think it shows this. I think it shows that companies expect unions to be a huge pain in the ass that they would go out of their way to avoid (even illegally), but it doesn't follow that unions are therefore effective at their stated purpose for the workers. That may or may not be the case.
- dllthomas 3y agoRight. I happen to think it often is the case, but management resistance alone doesn't show it. In the world of anti-union PR where unionization hurts everyone but parasitic union organizers, we would also expect to see management resistance, so that can't distinguish between that world and ours.
- j16sdiz 3y agoMeanwhile in China, all union except the state-driven ones are illegal. Deng Xiaoping took away the right to go onstrike because "the communist party is owned by the worker and represents the best interest of the workers".
- AndyMcConachie 3y agoChina has raised more people out of poverty faster than any other civilization in history.
- linksnapzz 3y agoExcept the people who were killed while doing it; but the fewer poor people to raise,the easier it is...
- refurb 3y agoSame thing in Singapore. Unions were a hot bed of communism and radicalism leading to protests and riots. Now there is one union - NTUC, and it's the only legal union.